Resolve an Umami website

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context about ambiguous matches returning bounded candidates instead of guessing, which is not covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, efficiently conveying purpose and a key behavioral detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple lookup tool with 2 clearly described parameters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. No additional explanation needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by listing acceptable input types (UUID, domain, URL, name). The 'candidateLimit' parameter is explained via 'bounded candidates'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool resolves a website UUID using various identifiers (UUID, domain, URL, name) and handling ambiguous matches. This distinctively separates it from siblings like get_website (retrieve data given UUID) and list_websites (list all).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for resolving a website to its UUID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_website when UUID known). No exclusions or when-not conditions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.